Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 44 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 710
`
`M O R R I S , N I C H O L S , A R S H T & T U N N E L L L L P
`1201 NORTH MARKET STREET
`P.O. BOX 1347
`WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899-1347
`
`(302) 658-9200
`(302) 658-3989 FAX
`
`JACK B. BLUMENFELD
`(302) 351-9291
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`
`
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`United States District Court
` for the District of Delaware
`844 N. King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`
`Re:
`
`August 25, 2016
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
`C.A. No. 16-116 (RGA)
`
`
`Dear Judge Andrews:
`
`
`Facebook submits this response to Sound View’s August 24, 2016 letter for the discovery
`dispute telephone conference scheduled for tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. With its initial infringement
`contentions due tomorrow and Facebook’s initial invalidity contentions due four weeks later,
`Sound View seeks to remove the Scheduling Order’s agreed upon limitation of “[n]o more than
`20 total claims” and place no limit on how many of the 138 claims of the patents-in-suit it can
`assert.
`
`
`There was nothing inadvertent about the inclusion of the agreement that “[n]o more than
`20 total claims shall be asserted by Plaintiff” in the Scheduling Order. Sound View’s assertion
`that it did not notice the provision until August 12 is troubling given that the “[n]o more than 20
`total claims” language was included, unchanged, in four drafts of the Scheduling Order
`exchanged between Sound View and Facebook, and was never disputed. Sound View’s counsel
`then twice filed proposed Scheduling Orders that included the now disputed language,
`effectively representing to the Court that it had agreed that “[n]o more than 20 total claims shall
`be asserted by Plaintiff.”
`
`
`Facebook included the “[n]o more than 20 total claims” language in its first revision of
`the draft scheduling order to focus the issues in the case early. As set forth below, Facebook’s
`agreement to many of the provisions in the Scheduling Order was predicated on the agreement
`that “[n]o more than 20 total claims” would be asserted. Reversing course now to allow Sound
`View to assert at least 49 claims, and potentially many more, would substantially expand this
`case and further burden the Court and the parties.
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 44 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 711
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`August 25, 2016
`Page 2
`
`A timeline of the parties’ negotiations illustrates that the inclusion of the “[n]o more than
`20 total claims” language in the Scheduling Order was not “inadvertent.”
`
`May 20 – Sound View sent Facebook a proposed scheduling order. (Ex. A). The parties
`met and conferred and Facebook agreed to provide revisions to the draft order.
`
`May 31 – Facebook sent a revised proposed order that includes the “[n]o more than 20
`total claims” language. (Ex. B). Later that day, Facebook and Sound View met and conferred
`about Facebook’s revisions. Following the meet and confer, Sound View circulated a redline
`over Facebook’s revisions to the proposed order, which also included the “[n]o more than 20
`total claims” language. (Ex. C). Sound View’s revisions demonstrated that it had made a careful
`review of Facebook’s draft. Indeed, in the paragraph directly above the “[n]o more than 20 total
`claims” language, Sound View objected to Facebook’s inclusion of a footnote as shown in the
`following excerpt:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. C at 10).
`
`June 1 – The parties exchanged additional emails regarding Sound View’s May 31 draft.
`(Ex. D). Sound View’s counsel then filed the proposed Scheduling Order with the Court
`including the “[n]o more than 20 total claims” language. (D.I. 18)
`
`June 3 – At the Scheduling Conference, the parties discussed a number of provisions of
`the proposed Scheduling Order, including items on the same page as the “[n]o more than 20 total
`claims” language, but Sound View never raised that language as a dispute. (Id.)
`
`June 9 –Facebook sent a revised draft of the proposed order to Sound View, again
`including the “[n]o more than 20 total claims” language. (Ex. E.) The parties conducted a meet
`and confer later that day. Sound View’s counsel then circulated another draft of the proposed
`order, still including the “[n]o more than 20 total claims” language. (Ex. F.)
`
`June 10 – Sound View filed the revised proposed Scheduling Order it had circulated on
`June 9, again including the “[n]o more than 20 total claims” language. (D.I. 20)
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 44 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 712
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`August 25, 2016
`Page 3
`
`
`
`June 13 – The Court entered the Scheduling Order with the “[n]o more than 20 total
`claims” language. (D.I. 21)
`
`August 12 –Sound View’s counsel contacted Facebook’s counsel claiming that it had just
`discovered the “[n]o more than 20 total claims” language.
`
`As can be seen from the timeline above, the “[n]o more than 20 total claims” language
`was included in Facebook’s first set of revisions to Sound View’s proposed Scheduling Order,
`and in every revision thereafter, including in two separate filings by Sound View’s counsel, and
`was entered more than two months ago.
`
`During this time, Facebook believed that Sound View had agreed to focus this case on
`“[n]o more than 20 total claims.” Sound View had represented to Facebook and to the Court that
`it “agreed to streamline the discovery process and really focus in on the issues” rather than
`“scorch the earth” in this case. (June 3, 2016 Tr. at 5:14-17). Moreover, Facebook’s agreement
`to the timing of invalidity contentions, discovery limits and claim construction briefing limits
`were all predicated on an understanding that this case was limited to “[n]o more than 20 total
`claims.” If Sound View were now permitted to expand the case up to at least 49 claims or as
`many as 138 claims, many provisions in the Scheduling Order will need to be revisited.
`
`Sound View identifies no reason why this Court should expand the number of asserted
`claims beyond the “20 total claims” Sound View already agreed to. Facebook believes that “[n]o
`more than 20 total claims” are sufficient. Facebook respectfully requests that Sound View’s
`request to modify the Scheduling Order be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`
`
`JBB/dlw
`Enclosures
`cc:
`Clerk of Court (Via Hand Delivery; w/ encl.)
`
`All Counsel of Record (Via Electronic Mail; w/ encl.)